User talk:The Retiree

September 2019

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at WP:Teahouse, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience.

How can I fix this? The article is no longer an orphan. I don't know the difference between Draft and Live (mainspace?). I moved the article from Sandbox to Wikipedia Drafts, and thought the moderators had moved it to Live (mainspace?) and that there would be a redirect on Wikipedia drafts. Any help that you can give to me is most welcome. I want to join the Wikipedia community as a contributor, and I want to do it right. I also notice that some of the external links have been removed - is this because they were not referenced in the article? The Retiree (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is clearly still an orphan, as there are no other mainspace articles listed in What links here. Please take the time to go away and read what it says at WP:Orphan. As for external links, you will find advice at WP:External links. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

is this not a mainspace article -

which is at the top of the article The Retiree (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Anne Puckridge#De-orphan for more information on why the article is tagged with {{Orphan}} and how to WP:DE-ORPHAN it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Puckridge - biography of a living person

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with the message "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification" The Retiree (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Retiree (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sections 1-3 of the article contain no inline citations. Inline citations are required for BLPs.

So what sort of help do you need? Whoever wrote those sources was going off of some source. If it is not a published source, therefore not verifiable by readers, it will have to be removed. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Anne Puckridge, appears to have been inappropriate, and has been reverted. Please feel free to use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Did you not read what that category says? To remind you, it says: "This is a maintenance category. It is used for maintenance of the Wikipedia project and is not part of the encyclopedia. It contains pages that are not articles, or it groups articles by status rather than subject. Do not include this category in content categories. This category contains the talk pages of articles which relate to living persons." David Biddulph (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but you are now talking a different language. What was the recent edit that has been flagged as inappropraite? maintenance category - would that be Category:biography articles of living people? The Retiree (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff

Hi The Retiree. It seems like you've having some problems figuring out how Wikipedia works. That's fine and lots of people (even some who've been editing much longer than you) have trouble getting the hang of things. Perhaps it might be a good idea for you to slow down a bit and try to regroup. Some general things for you to consider. (The words in blue are links to relevant pages. Some of these links are given as short-cuts; so, don't be put off by them.)

Are you connected to Puckridge in some way? You don't need to answer this per se, but if you are then please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for reference. Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit editors who have a conflict of interest from creating or editing content, but it highly discourages it because can leads to some serious problems. So, if you do have such a connection, then you can avoid these problems by following the relevant guidelines. However, if your conflict of interest is more of a financial one, then you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use to comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Undeclared compensated editing is one of the fastest ways to find your account blocked by an administrator so there's not a lot leeway when it comes to this.
Why did you create the article? (Again more of a rhetorical question) If you created it to be WP:HERE, then you'll probably be fine; if you created it to be WP:NOTHERE, you're likely going to run into problems fairly quickly. Only subjects generally deemed to be Wikipedia notable are considered OK to write articles about. There's lots of wonderful people doing wonderful things throughout the world, but not many of them are appropriate to write a Wikipedia article about. Moreover, once an article is created, it can be edited by anyone from anywhere around the world at anytime as long as they do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines (particularly WP:BLP in this case). This means that neither you (as the article's creator) nor Puckridge (or those associated with her) have any right of final editorial control over the content of the article per WP:OWN. Positive and negative content (see WP:LUC and WP:PROUD) can be added as long as it's reliably sourced and not WP:UNDUE. The article is not intended to promote Puckridge or her activities and it's not intended to set the record straight about the pension problem. If Puckridge or anyone connected to here have concerns about the article's content, she/they should follow the suggestions given in WP:BLPSELF.
If you have specific questions about the content of an article or suggestions on how to improve it, then the place to discuss them would be on the article's talk page. If you find yourself in disagreement with another editor over article content, then please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Wikipedia wants editors to be WP:BOLD in creating and editing article, but expects them to do so in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. So, if you make an edit which is WP:REVERTED by another editor, please assume good faith and follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and try and resolve their concerns; don't just keep trying to force the edit through because that is likely going to be seen as edit warring no matter how "right" you believe you are.
All Wikipedia editors are basically the same. Some have more experience then others, but they all can basically do the same things. That is why disagreements over article content tend to be best involved though WP:CONSENSUS. There are certain editors who are administrators, but there role is to make sure Wikipedia runs smoothly and deal with things like WP:DE or WP:BEHAVE; so, they moderate things to a certain degree and can participate in discussions, but they mainly monitor the project for problems.
The Wikimedia Foundation runs many different project besides (English) Wikipedia. All of these projects are members of the same family so to speak, but they are all independent from one another and have their own WP:COMMUNITY and own policies and guidelines. I'm bringing this up because you uploaded an image to Commons which has been flagged for problems; so, you will have to address that on Commons. Please see c:User talk:The Retiree for more on that.

If you've got any general questions about any of the above, please feel free to ask them below or at the Wikipedia Teahouse. If you have a question about the file you uploaded to Commons, try asking at c:COM:VPC. If you're got a question about COI or BLP editing try asking at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. There are lots of editors who are willing to help others sort things out, but you've got be a little patient and give them a chance to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this - some of these I have answered as our messages will have crossed. It is fair to say that I have been mauled on Wikipedia today, and, as you say, I maybe need to regroup. As a new contributing person to Wikipedia, I thought that I had done a really good job in terms of citation, but apparently not. Food for thought. I will read your comments more fully tomorrow but all of the :WP references emphatically make my point with regard to Wikipedia. You have been very kind in laying this out for me, and I will ponder for sure. I have alot to contribute to Wikipedia and I need to find the right way of doing this.

Thanks for taking the time to lay this out for me - I appreciate it The Retiree (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to add that writing an article from scratch is quite hard to do, and many first efforts don't even come as close to being as well written as the one you created about Puckridge; in fact, many end up being deleted quite quickly for one reason or another. However, being well written is not a substitute for being well-sourced as explained in WP:ARTN. Wikipedia notability is not temporary per WP:NTEMP but it does need to be verifiable per WP:NRV or at least assumed to be reasonably plausible per WP:NEXIST, both of which seem to apply to Puckridge. You can be certain that one of the Teahouse hosts answering your questions or another editor who just happened to stumble upon the article would have tagged it for speedy deletion asap if they truly believed that it real value at all to Wikipedia. There are some problems, but nothing which seems at the moment to be insurmountable and requiring complete demolition.

Articles about living persons can be comparatively hard to write/edit because Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is quite restrictive to protect not only Wikipedia, but also the individuals being written about. You'd be surprised how many people what to add negative content about people they don't like or maybe even people they do like but who happen to miss crucial kick in an important game. On the other hand, there are tons of fans who really want the world to know just how great and wonder their favorite actor, etc, is. Wikipedia understands it's in the WP:REALWORLD and that people will try to use it for reasons it's not intended to be used. That's why it has so many policies and guidelines.

Finally, please do be put off by the short-cut links I and others are using in posts. They can be confusing per Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! and some of them might seem a bit "subjective", but they are really only intended to direct an editor to a page where they might find information that's helpful; so, they are sort serving as the messenger, but are not really the message itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked about the article at WT:MILHIST#Anne Puckridge. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History has lots of members who are really experienced at working with military biographies and one of them may be able to find some sources on her military career, etc. or provide other suggestions on ways to improve the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to thank you for the trouble you have put into this. There is much to digest and work upon, and I will revisit parts of the article. Ms Puckridge is someone that I have never met (and we are not related in any way), and it was only after reading about Veteran Affairs Canada inviting her to be on the Unsung Heroes float at this year's Calgary Stampede. I reached out to her via a third party friend, and when she sent me her biography, I thought she had the notability to be on Wikipedia. Before drafting anything I read the Emmeline_Pankhurst and whilst Puckridge does not have the same place in history as Emily Pankhurst, I though it was a good model to use. I have been in contact with Ms Puckridge and asked her if she can send me appropriate verification with regard to her education and time spent in the Indian Armed Services during the Second World War. She has written to the British Library with regard to her military service. I looked up Bangalore University Alumni (on Wikipedia, of course!) and found that their Alumni only goes back to 1953.

I will learn from this, and hope to improve my Wikipedia writing expertise. If there are reference manuals, or tutorials, that you can point me too, I will be very grateful - I will be starting with YouTube, since I have seen some on there, and Wikipedia has its own tutorials that I can also look at.

Thank you, again The Retiree (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anne Puckridge

After seeing your post about this at the Teahouse, the easiest thing for you to do would probably be to add Template:db-g7 to the top of the page per WP:G7. There's no need for a draft about an existing article and it will only likely confuse things. You can, if you wish, copy and past the content into a userspace draft if you want to continue working on it, but there's really no need for this since you can add changes directly to the article. The draft namespace is really only intended to host possible future new articles, not really to host content for improving existing articles. The draft will eventually end up being deleted per WP:G13 if left unedited for six months, but a G7 deletion is way way faster. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I misunderstood the process. I developed the page in my Sandbox, and then moved it to Wikipedia drafts, thinking that Wikipedia Moderators would then move it to the live system. Please delete this draft The Retiree (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot delete the draft since I'm not an administrator. You can request the draft be deleted by adding {{db-g7}} to the top of the page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now marked this for deletion - many thanks The Retiree (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Human Rights Act (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi The Retiree! You created a thread called Sandbox at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi The Retiree! You created a thread called Live Wikipedia Page at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Posting on article talk pages

Hi The Retiree. I've reverted this edit you made to Talk:Anne Puckridge because you had unintentionally removed parts of posts made by other editors and/or otherwise changed previous posted comments by trying to revise/insert you comments into those made by others. While I'm sure you did this unintentionally without any ill-will (maybe a little frustration), it's really one of the fastest ways to find yourself having problems with other editors on Wikipedia per WP:TPO. Formatting mistakes such as indentation, etc. are things that can be usually worked around, but removing/refactoring comments made by others is not a really good thing to do, except under certain specific cases.

Generally, if you want to respond to something someone else has posted, the best way to do so is to simply post your comment below theirs and and one indentation level. It's possible to insert replies into another post, but the Wikipedia software works a little different that used by other online forums and doing so tends to create more problems and unnecessary clean up. You may also accidentally remove/refactor something someone else posts and change the meaning or flow of their post. So, it's best not to do so.

If you post something that nobody has yet responded to and you want either remove it altogether or correct something, you can usually do so without problem. If, however, you want to remove/change a post that another editor has responded to, you should follow the instructions given in WP:REDACT. Sometimes even changing one word in your post can affect the meaning of the response and change the entire context of the discussion; so, it's best to follow REDACT unless it's a really obvious correction like a typo that has not possible affect of the meaning of your post.

So, if you want to re-add your post in a way that avoids the problems mentioned above, then feel free to do so. You can find some general guidance on how to properly use talk pages in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Annette Carson.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Annette Carson.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 23:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lichtenstein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Frozen Pension has been nominated for discussion

Category:Frozen Pension, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Annette Carson (January 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Annette Carson and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Annette Carson, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 10:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Retiree! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DGG ( talk ) 10:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could these comments be any more patronising? The Retiree (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comments are standard text for any declined article - not about your draft in particular. David notMD (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haha yes I feel the same way whenever I receive a templated text. It is however just a templated text that is sent automatically when a draft is rejected, and as you can see from "lend a hand to help new editors like yourself!" this template's intended audience is brand new editors. You don't have to submit articles as drafts, you can move it yourself to mainspace if you want. DGG does give some good pointers about how to improve the draft. I would recommend removing the citations to court documents, we try to stay away from primary sources on biographies, it's better to cite the newspaper coverage of it instead. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (User talk:David notMD) and User talk:Pjarkur for your very constructive and helpful comments. If I want to create sub-pages what would be the easiest and most practical way to achieve this. When I move an article to Mainspace, do I select move and then in the page name do I put Parent Article/Child Article as the name of the page?

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, The Retiree. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Nick Moyes (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Annette Carson moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Annette Carson, is still not satisfactory. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC) Can you please identify for me the parts of this article that you deem unsatisfactory - I have made the changes the you (and others) requested and I was informed that I could move this article to Mainspace myself, which is what I have done. Thank you. The Retiree (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC) DGG: Can you please clarify what changes you would like me to make to this page before it can be moved back to mainspace? The Retiree (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. You are apparently using Wikipedia to advance a cause: in the three related articles:

with large amounts of the same advocacy material in all three articles. Wikipedia may not be used for the purpose --see WP:RIGHT GREAT WRONGS and the fundamental policy upon which it is based, WP:NPOV

It seems that you may possibly have a conflict of interest with the subjects covered in those articles, so see also WP:COI, and, just in case it might apply, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the formal notice above, for the record. Less formally, I advise you on thebasis of many years of experience here that you are likely to have more sucess if you do not push so hard The extensive use of primary sourcesand other problems in the legal article might not have been noticed, and the notability problems with the Puckridge article, had you not tried to write the promotional article on Carson. As it is, I will guide you to the best way to deal with this. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC) . Thank you for these comments. On the Talk Page of R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, there is this: "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.", so on that basis, the changes that I have made on that page have only improved it, so, if there is anything on that page that breaks the Wikiproject law rules, please let me know. of the Draft:Annette Carson page, I amended the "Legal Challenge" section significantly and deleted the references to each of the court hearings, as I was advised to do. What other changes would you like to see. I think WP:COI is extremely harsh since I have no interest one way or another, so, could you please explain where you think the conflict is? I would like to remind you that Wikipedia editors around the world have different views on editing. For example, can you please explain to me how this page List of vegetarian restaurants made it to Wikipedia, with further links to individual restaurants - there appears to be a clear conflict of interest here, not to mention the commercial aspects, which also not supposed to be allowed. Why am I being held to a different standard than these articles? The Retiree (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Puckridge moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Anne Puckridge, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had this discussion with other Wikipedia editors some months ago, and I thought that I had answered all of their questions, and the article was to remain in Mainspace. Why, after all of this time has the article now been moved back to mainspace? This person is Wikipedia noteworthy for serving in all the armed forces in India during the Second World War. I doubt that there are five women alive today who could make that claim. Compared to pages and pages on Wikipedia on vegan restaurants. Again, why are the Wikipedia pages that I have developed held to a different standard than other Wikipedia pages? The Retiree (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC) I would further add that I did have many more citations originally, but I was asked to remove them. The Retiree (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

=continued response

You are trying to justify advocacy by making what I consider a rather unrealistic claim of notability: ("I doubt whether there are 5 women who can make that claim" does not show that any or all of them are notable at least in the WP sense. _ It's not just counting citations--no amount of miscellaneous notices amount to coverage in depth. The only reason I didn't list it for a deletion discussion is that the standards at Draft are-- as they should be -- much lower than in mainspace, in the hope that articles will improve. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you haven't answered any of my questions. The Puckridge article has been heavily edited by a number of editors, and was in the position of being acceptable (to them). This article was done and dusted several weeks ago, and now it has been moved back to draft - I am very confused by the editing process. How many editors does it take to look at one page?The Retiree (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

some specific advice

1. The Puckridge article will never meet our standards, and trying to get it accepted will hurt the others, besides being a clear indication of COI. 2. The notability for Carson depends mainly on her writings. The list of writings needs publisher stated., and the account of the case shortened even further. A reliable editor is working on it so it should see further improvements. After he's done some more, I'll see what I can do. 3. The article on the case is probably acceptable also, though it needs shortening, and considerable improvement in presentation.

The 2 plaintiffs & the 2 successive ECHR cases are somewhat confusing. Some of the summary material goes into the lede paragraph. The summary should be relabelled Background, , and the background material or a separate section or the chronology should mention whatever administrative proceedings there were before the case in the high court. I added some clarification.
Section 3.1 is where the confusion starts: it deals only with Carson's case. . A parallel section is necessary for Reynolds. Section 3.2 is where I really got confused thefirst time I read this. I think about the combined appeal. This needs to be said. The material given seems to concern Carson only; what was said about Reynolds?
When the same point is raided by successive successive appeals, it can be abbreviated a little; when the same point is made by serval judges in the same case, it can be abbreviated greatly--there is no need to quote each statement unles they say something substantially different.
As for style: don't overlink--we link only the first time something is mentioned in the article. When giving names of the judges, we usually abbreviate the tiles after the first mention. Lord X, not Lord X of Y. After a few times we just give their last name .

Perhaps this will help. I could abbreviate the article myself, but you will do it better. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Re: your points above: 1. as I said above, the Puckridge article was edited by multiple Wikipedia editors sometime ago, and they seemed happy with the result.. This has been in Mainspace for a while, so I do not understand why it has been taken back to draft. Can you please put it back there? 2. Carson - I have reduced the "legal challenge" section, and I see that your "reliable editor" has made a number of other changes. I have now resubmitted the article for review. I don't understand what this expression means "The list of writings needs publisher stated" - all of the (non-fiction) books that she has written have their ISBN numbers as links, so I do not know what you are looking for here. 3. I thought that the presentation is standard Wikipedia style so I am not sure what you mean when you say "considerable improvement in presentation" is required - can you please clarify?[reply]

"The 2 Plaintiffs....." - I have renamed the "Case Summary" to "Background" and I have clarified who was involved in which Court case, so, hopefully this is clearer/ I have shortened the "Background" section.
I understand your confusion regarding 3.1! This only covers the Carson case. I have now changed this - there is now a separate section for Carson and Reynolds - I will complete the section on Reynolds tomorrow;
The name of the page should probably change to be something more generic since it involves Carson, Reynolds and the class action group for the ECHR hearings. I would be grateful for any advice you have on this
In terms of neutrality, I give one point for the plaintiffs, usually followed by a point for the Secretary of State or vice versa. I have worked quite hard to achieve this, but if you think I could achieve this in a different way, please let me know. I could group them together and have separate sections: Points for the Claimant (Carson, Reynolds, Class Action); Points for the Defendant (Secretary of State).

The Retiree (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC) After looking at Roe v Wade, I cannot believe that there can be a problem with the length of this article (these pensions cases were in the court system for three times as long as Roe v Wade). I have also been taken to task for using the term "landmark" as a peacock tern, and yet it appears in the Roe v Wade article. Can you please now take off the restrictions, or advise me of what else I need to do? Thank you. The Retiree (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to your draft six times in a mainspace article

I can't believe this link from article space to your sandbox survived several months! Do not do this again, it is an obvious circumvention of policy. We do not link to user drafts from article space.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed five more instances of a link to your userspace in that article. I would have thought that it would be obvious that this is not done. We are not a self-publishing operation. Pinging DGG to also have a look at this.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to clear up some confusion that I had created with DGG, and showing intent for articles that I am hoping to publish. All of the articles that I have reference will be submitted for review shortlyThe Retiree (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case law articles

I appreciate the amount of work that you've put into the various British case law articles, but they're not written as Wikipedia articles. Articles should primarily be prose based off of citations to secondary sources, whereas these articles are direct reports written almost entirely from primary sources. For reference of what would generally be expected of an article about case law, see McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd or Griswold v. Connecticut. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Thank you very much for your helpful comments and useful example. You were correct when you said that a lot of work has gone into developing these articles - 6 months in fact. I worked for law firms for most of my life, and law firm partners want information delivered to them in bullet point style, rather than prose - it is tough to get out of that habit! I will get redrafting now. If you have a couple of minutes, maybe you could be kind enough to review the precursor to these law cases - Annette Carson's biography page. It has previously been reviewed several times, and I hope that it can now be released into main space. The page is Draft:Annette Carson The Retiree (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at the linked article and I'd say that at a glance it looks good enough to be accepted to mainspace. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. The Retiree (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC) I have now transferred the article to mainspace - would you be able to remove the tags at the top of the article? Thanks. The Retiree (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tags, but I'm going to leave it in the new pages queue because I haven't gone over the sources in detail. A reviewer should take a look at it soon, no further action is necessary on your part. That having been said, you may want to make some edits so that your quotations conform to MOS:QUOTE, as italicized quotes are not the suggested style. This will not be a make or break difference for whether the article is accepted, but complying with the manual of style is strongly encouraged nonetheless. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for being so helpful - I did notice italicised quotes in your example, but, if you would like me to remove them I would be happy to do so.The Retiree (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's the kind of thing you'd need to fix if you want to submit the article to be reviewed for good article status, but otherwise isn't a big deal. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am redrafting anyway, there is no reason why I can't change it. The redrafting will take a few days, but perhaps I can let you know when I have redrafted an article, and I would be grateful if you could review them. I very much appreciate your help and comments.The Retiree (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished the overall Case Summary - R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & R (Carson & Reynolds) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I would be very grateful if you could review this - thanks.The Retiree (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC) I have also now redrafted the first two hearings, and I would be very grateful if you kindly review these. The pages are: Carson, R v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor (2002) EWHC 978 (Admin) and Carson & Anor v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2003) EWCA Civ 797. Thanks very much.The Retiree (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Anne Puckridge

Hello, The Retiree. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Anne Puckridge".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]